Again BPA doesn't always mean the best for the team...
We already have a 1,000+ rusher, why waste a pick for a chance of a better one?
Saints had a 1000 yard rusher...didn't stop them from taking Kamara. Also didn't stop Ingram from running for 1000 yards this year. Yes he wasn't a first round pick, but he was a third round pick. Both of them can be utilized in the offense. Barkley is dynamic in a way Howard is not even close to being.
And yes...BPA does always mean best for the team...unless you've got the best to ever play the position at that position currently. Either way...this isn't happening.
You can't really compare a third round pick to a first round pick. A top 10 pick has more weight then any third round pick. If this team didn't have Howard and Cohen I could see a legit argument for Barkley like I saw a few years back with Elliott. Heck I remember just last draft when I brought up the possibility of Leonard Fournette most if not all were against the idea and said Howard was the only back we needed.
Sure Barkley is dynamic in a way Howard isn't but we have Cohen to take the place of Howard to fit the offensive role required for that play.
"unless you've got the best to ever play the position at that position currently."
Again teams draw the line somewhere when they have more important issues to address.
Let's say Barkley is ranked top 3 for RBs in the game and we have Howard ( Who we say stays a top 10 RB most of his career ). Let's say Ridley for example was going to be a top 10 WR for his career. Would it be better for the team to have two top 10 players at different positions on offense or one who is ranked in the top 3?
EXACTLY. Howard is PROVEN at the NFL level, Barkley is not. Would the Packers have drafted Andrew Luck had he fallen? Uh, NO, because they aren’t dumb, they would have traded down. Don’t make me start going through the “can’t miss” 1st round prospects that flopped big time in the NFL.
They drafted Aaron Rodgers when he fell when they had Favre...not sure thats the best example.
Favre was 35 when Rodgers was drafted. Rodgers was clearly the replacement for Favre.
No, why would we draft another RB when we already have a top 10 RB in Howard?
Go after a position of need and that's a pass rusher...
Dude, I’m all for given strong consideration to need and positional value but of the BEST OVERALL FOOTBALL PLAYER falls to you, you take him no questions asked.
No, why would we draft another RB when we already have a top 10 RB in Howard?
Go after a position of need and that's a pass rusher...
Dude, I’m all for given strong consideration to need and positional value but of the BEST OVERALL FOOTBALL PLAYER falls to you, you take him no questions asked.
YES, HELL YES
If he's the best overall football player and he's there at #8? Wouldn't it be better to trade down and collect a huge farm from someone? We don't need a RB but could always use the picks.
EXACTLY. Howard is PROVEN at the NFL level, Barkley is not. Would the Packers have drafted Andrew Luck had he fallen? Uh, NO, because they aren’t dumb, they would have traded down. Don’t make me start going through the “can’t miss” 1st round prospects that flopped big time in the NFL.
They drafted Aaron Rodgers when he fell when they had Favre...not sure thats the best example.
I think it's a great example. Here's the average career length of NFL players.
It's 3.3 years and goes to six for players who make the 53 man roster as rookies but counter to this is the average career length of a RB is 2.57 years. Howard is entering his third season so from now on he'll be subject to those averages. How long will his career last given his running style?
This whole deal is theoretical anyway. Barkley will not fall to #8 but we are getting a chance to see who advocates drafting based on need first and BPA second.
Dude, I’m all for given strong consideration to need and positional value but of the BEST OVERALL FOOTBALL PLAYER falls to you, you take him no questions asked.
YES, HELL YES
If he's the best overall football player and he's there at #8? Wouldn't it be better to trade down and collect a huge farm from someone? We don't need a RB but could always use the picks.
Fine. But with who, to what pick, and for what in return? You're assuming we can get max value for the pick. We may not.
Whenever you want to trade up or down you have to find a willing party to trade with for a price you're willing to pay or receive and that's always easier said than done. All of that comes into play and you have 10 minutes in which to do it. GO.......LOL
Saints had a 1000 yard rusher...didn't stop them from taking Kamara. Also didn't stop Ingram from running for 1000 yards this year. Yes he wasn't a first round pick, but he was a third round pick. Both of them can be utilized in the offense. Barkley is dynamic in a way Howard is not even close to being.
And yes...BPA does always mean best for the team...unless you've got the best to ever play the position at that position currently. Either way...this isn't happening.
You can't really compare a third round pick to a first round pick. A top 10 pick has more weight then any third round pick. If this team didn't have Howard and Cohen I could see a legit argument for Barkley like I saw a few years back with Elliott. Heck I remember just last draft when I brought up the possibility of Leonard Fournette most if not all were against the idea and said Howard was the only back we needed.
Sure Barkley is dynamic in a way Howard isn't but we have Cohen to take the place of Howard to fit the offensive role required for that play.
"unless you've got the best to ever play the position at that position currently."
Again teams draw the line somewhere when they have more important issues to address.
Let's say Barkley is ranked top 3 for RBs in the game and we have Howard ( Who we say stays a top 10 RB most of his career ). Let's say Ridley for example was going to be a top 10 WR for his career. Would it be better for the team to have two top 10 players at different positions on offense or one who is ranked in the top 3?
I don't disagree with your points MOTM, I just want to make that clear. But in the example given I'm going to take Barkley because even if I don't trade Howard I can use the both of them in the game at same time. Hell...I could use Howard, Barkley and Cohen at the same time. Is it a need? Nope. Does it make the team better? Yep. The Saints had two top 10 players at one position...how'd it work out for them? Both Ingram and Kamara had over 1500 yards from scrimmage. I guess thats the point I'm making. I'm not passing on a guy who I'm 99.9% sure is going to be great, just because I have someone who's good at that position to draft a guy I'm not as sure will be great or good at another position. I'll draft Barkley and make it work in my offense.
They drafted Aaron Rodgers when he fell when they had Favre...not sure thats the best example.
Favre was 35 when Rodgers was drafted. Rodgers was clearly the replacement for Favre.
Not a good example...
Ummm....it sure is. Favre went on to play till he was 41. He played 3 more seasons for the Packers after they drafted Rodgers and went 13-3 his last season there. So no...Rodgers was not the immediate replacement for Favre. He didn't replace him for 3 years and sat on the bench throwing a total of 59 passes combined over those 3 years. They had Favre...he wasn't leaving anytime soon, he had made 3 straight pro bowls coming into the 05 season, they went 10-6 in 05 finishing first in the division and going to the playoffs and Favre threw for over 4000 yards and had 30td's...and yet when a guy who they felt was the best QB in the draft fell to them...THEY TOOK HIM.
It's 3.3 years and goes to six for players who make the 53 man roster as rookies but counter to this is the average career length of a RB is 2.57 years. Howard is entering his third season so from now on he'll be subject to those averages. How long will his career last given his running style?
This whole deal is theoretical anyway. Barkley will not fall to #8 but we are getting a chance to see who advocates drafting based on need first and BPA second.
I meant his use of "would the Packers draft Andrew Luck when they have Rodgers, no because they aren't stupid" line being a bad example. And yeah...we haven't even talked about the life span of runners like Howard.